If someone were to ask me today what I thought the best, fastest way is to grow big bluegills, my answer wouldn't be the same as it was 3-4, or 5 years ago. It's evolving as I go, and while I still build the foundation using the 4 cornerstones of food, water quality, population control, and limited cover, I think I might expand on them a little.

Nowadays, I think having the liquid geography available to devote an entire ecosystem to just bluegills, the willingness to allocate resources to that single ecosystem, and the knowledge to remediate the eventual issues that will arise in that ecosystem, would be paramount to reaching the goal.

Pond Boss Lusk - take one of your large 3 times a day fed BG and clean it. Take a good picture of its liver. Do the same thing with a fairly large wild BG one that has not eaten pellets or one that has been feed Optimal fish food for the summer. Post all the pictures on the forum or in the magazine of their livers. Then repeat the comments in your above post. Your comment does not hold true for yellow perch. Let's see how true it is for bluegill.

Wild Bill,I don't have access to any fish that are fed Optimal fish food. Those images will need to come from elsewhere.

As we do our electrofishing surveys over the next few weeks, I'll ask my guys to collect a few big bluegills (if they come across any) that haven't been fed any fish food...although we don't see any big bluegills which haven't been fed...and I'll personally dissect them and shoot some photos.

Plus, next time I go to Richmond Mill, I'll collect some of those fish, dissect them and take some photos there.

Don't look for those photos soon. It will take some time.

Oh, I didn't make any commments about yellow perch. Not sure the significance of your comment about that. During Dr. Griffin's research, he focused specifically on largemouth bass and bluegills, and how that feed affected livers, as well as growth rates and metabolism.

Bob, you can get some of mine to compare. They are fed Optimal, and probably good comparison since my stocker fish came from you.

>>>Might not work, because mine aren't old enough. BUt they will be in 3-4 more years if this debate is still going on....

Re more frequent feeding of smaller amounts, I see a couple of advantages.

First, if there is competition for the feed, the fish get more of it.

Wouldn't have thought about that until I watched my "feed trained" geese go from feeder to feeder. If 12 seconds of feed thrown (1 lb), they can get there in time to chow down on what the fish haven't gotten yet. If 3 seconds, by the time they get there it is almost all gone to BG.

The other advantage of shorter feed times: Makes it harder for GBH to grab unwary fish. By the time they get there, almost all feed gone and fish less likely to come in shallow chasing stray pellets.

I think the importance of genetics is directly proportional to the goal at hand. I look at growing big bluegills almost like building a drag car. To go 300 mph, a fuel car needs the appropriate engine, a dialed in clutch/drivetrain, a good set of slicks, and an aerodynamically adjustable frame to hold it all together.

To go above 300 mph, we need all the above, plus some fine tuning and wing adjustments. If I equate this to bluegills, I get:

If my goal is 300 mph or 2lb bluegills, this is a really good foundation. If my goal is 300 mph plus, or 3lb bluegills, I need something extra....I need to fine tune and adjust, or I need good genetics.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I really believe that given what I know now, the advancements in feed, (optimal), and a clean slate to start with, I feel positive that I could grow a notable number of 2lb bluegills with fish sourced right off my local fish truck, no pedigreed genetics needed. The population in the HBG pond is getting up in years, I have actually been pondering trying this very thing with it.

I would agree spark to some degree. I got my BG from a decent fish farm but nothing said they were of any GREAT DNA chain. I have done nothing but put air in my pond, supplement feed, and cover and I have 11 in BG so like you said I think I am missing that one extra "thing" or tweak, if you will to get to 12 inch 2 pound BG. Or maybe I have a few just haven't caught them yet? I don't know for sure. I imagine at the 12 inch 2 pound mark they can get somewhat hook shy and smarter than your average gill....

RC

_________________________
The only difference between a rut and a Grave is the depth. So get up get out of that rut and get moving!! Time to work!!

If my goal is 300 mph or 2lb bluegills, this is a really good foundation. If my goal is 300 mph plus, or 3lb bluegills, I need something extra....I need to fine tune and adjust, or I need good genetics.

If my goal is 300 mph or 2lb bluegills, this is a really good foundation. If my goal is 300 mph plus, or 3lb bluegills, I need something extra....I need to fine tune and adjust, or I need good genetics.

large enough track to even be able to get to 300 MPH = pond size

Dang it, I was holding that one as my trump card!..want to grow a 2lb bluegill in your half acre pond? Stock a quarter of whatever number is recommended.

If my goal is 300 mph or 2lb bluegills, this is a really good foundation. If my goal is 300 mph plus, or 3lb bluegills, I need something extra....I need to fine tune and adjust, or I need good genetics.

large enough track to even be able to get to 300 MPH = pond size

Dang it, I was holding that one as my trump card!..want to grow a 2lb bluegill in your half acre pond? Stock a quarter of whatever number is recommended.

You might be able to, but you will have to really push the limits. Just like hitting 300 on an 1/8 mile track. You just can't get out of the throttle at the finish line and still get to 300. By the time you get to 300, there is not enough track left to slow down. It would likely be on one time run.

Bill D. RW is only 1 tool. While a very good tool it does have its deficiencies and only tells part of the story. Regional differences are large in national RW schedules. Also they are almost exclusively from wild fish , not pond fish. There are other condition factors which help in the fact finding. BG (and most pond fish)have an entirely different biochemistry/metabolic structure to land based animals (BG do not metabolize carbs and their lipid structure is completely different). One pond fish that does metabolize carbs and can get obese are HSB.

You might be able to, but you will have to really push the limits. Just like hitting 300 on an 1/8 mile track. You just can't get out of the throttle at the finish line and still get to 300. By the time you get to 300, there is not enough track left to slow down. It would likely be on one time run.

While you'd think Top Fuel was the fastest, that really belongs to Funny Car at 335 mph in 1,000 feet... Lea Pritchett in Top Fuel is the quickest at 3.65 seconds.. I don't know what his incrementals were, but I'm sure that he was well over 250 mph at the 1/8 mile mark.

Tony, I think you are correct. Give the fish plenty of space to swim, reduce the amount of stress they have (which includes keeping water quality at optimum) and feed them a great food.

I stocked feed trained LMB that were 2 years old in my pond in 2010. I've not seen any this year. They were floy tagged. 2 years ago, (or was it 3?) an 18.5" LMB weighed 5.95 pounds.....

I haven't seen any floating, so did they die and sink or were they removed without me knowing about it? I can't answer that question.

If it were simply a matter of pouring the food to em', shouldn't we be seeing numbers of two pounders by now? After all these years? Since I've been on the forum, an entire generation of Bluegills have come and gone. With all the folks feeding premium feed, it just seems like there would be photos galore, if feeding was all it took?

I totally agree with this. This may seem counter intuitive but I am inclined to think that the likelihood of a two pound bluegill is diminished by increased pond fertility (to include feeding as a source of fertility). Notwithstanding this diminished trophy potential, the likelyhood of 1 lb fish is much improved. In a BOW where 2lb BG can occur naturally, I have doubts that fertilization or feeding can increase the potential of the largest BG in a sustainable manner. By this I mean that perhaps there may be an initial benefit to the largest BG but that after a year or two the BOW may no longer be capable of producing BG of the size it could previously. Certainly the BOW would would have a greater biomass of BG but this would be distributed among more of them. The fishing would certainly be better, producing more harvest size bluegill, but may no longer support the trophies it produced before.

Originally Posted By: sprkplug

Just goes to show how rare a giant BG really is, me thinks. ESPECIALLY, in a 1/2 to 1 acre, multi species pond, like the majority of pond owners manage.

It is certainly true that 2lb + BG are very special and rare. The consideration of multi-species is an important one I think. A BOW capable of producing 2 lb BG must support the large BG but also annually produce a significant poundage of YOY BG to feed a significant poundage of small bass. The BG that grow to 2lb+ are the rare survivors which live to outgrow the gape of the predators.

I know this may not be a popular opinion, but I really believe that given what I know now ... I feel positive that I could grow a notable number of 2lb bluegills with fish sourced right off my local fish truck, no pedigreed genetics needed. . .

sprkplug, I totally agree with this but perhaps not for reasons you may suspect. I would propose that there is no such thing as very poor bluegill genetics for growth. The reason I propose this is that bluegill survival should favor the faster growers. In any situation where predated, natural selection should weed poor growth genetics. This is not to say that all genetics are equal, only that they are relatively _good or great_ but never poor when the BG brooders were subjected to predation.

In Alabama, the DOW tested whether there was anything special about the genetics of BG in the world record BOW. They concluded that when introduced to other environments they were not measurably different than other BG. I think this is important. I think it is unlikely we will ever develop better BG strains than nature or that genetics will contribute any more than a small difference.

Put ten fish (with absolutely no other fish) in an acre of water and give them all the feed they will eat and I'm sure there will be different results than supplementing feeding a pond that is full to carrying capacity of a variety of predator and prey fish.

Many of us feed but not specifically for trophy's or even to feed satiation levels.

To get a lot of 2# BG I would think it would take some very specific feeding conditions, not general supplemental feeding of an entire carrying capacity pond.

I have two problems with "pouring the feed to them". First is cost (if it is a significant size BOW) and second is water quality. I dropped back from feeding 5-6# feed per acre to 3 or less specifically because of water quality issues.

Can anyone answer the question-How do the occasional, but very rare 3.5 to 4 lb wild caught BG come to be? Why can't we have these in our ponds, given special and controlled conditions?

John, I don't think I can answer the question precisely, but I think the answer may lie in understanding the waters from which these BG have been caught. The BOW from which the world record BG were harvested would be a great case study. I say "were" because more than one world record size BG has been caught there (one official the other unofficial). It is not known how many, but certainly this BOW has/had produced a fair number of 2 lb+ BG.

The BOW was a limestone quarry. So here are some ideas ...

1. Being a quarry, ground water may have flowed through the BOW keeping the water cool enough to inhibit BG spawning through much of the summer. When I look at a ground water temperature map, Montgomery AL has a average groundwater temp of 67F. This is below the spawning temp of BG and so if a flow of groundwater inhibited spawning this might have had three important effects. Note that LMB recruitment would not be inhibited by this temp.

a. Delaying the first spawn would decrease BG recruitment and limit the size of 0 year BG further diminishing recruitment.

b. A shorter spawning season would increase the time BG could forage without the interference of spawning.

d. Just thought of this and added as edit. If ground water flowed through the BOW it would also have a warming effect throughout the Winter which could extend the growing season.

2. With little soil, the BOW is of limited fertility. Limited fertility allows for greater light penetration and clarity.

a. Greater light penetration may have benefited water quality by deepening the depth of photosynthetic activity increasing the volume of oxygenated water. Coupled with the higher oxygen carrying capacity of cooler water, the fish in the pond may not have experienced DO depletion stresses. Low fertility would reduce nighttime respiration reducing nighttime oxygen draw downs. Perhaps less DO stress helps to extend lifetime and help fish maintain a path of growth through out the growing season. For sure, the BG in the world record BOW do not experience concurrent DO and spawning stresses in the way that fish in other BOWs often do.

b. Clarity helps BG find food and LMB control BG recruitment. Both are predators and both benefit from clarity when it comes to growth.

3. This is pretty conjectural but it is worth considering. I think the BOW may have produced a significant biomass of YOY crayfish and large insects. There would be a lot of cover for crayfish in this BOW. If this cover was sufficient there may have been significant production of a small crayfish that reduced feeding effort and provided the necessary easy growth food needed to attain the remarkable BG weights the BOW produced

OK. so these are just a few ideas of what may make this BOW favorable for producing world records and perhaps this might provide some ideas that one might employ to mimic the circumstances needed to produce very large BG.

Many quarries in the Fla/Ga area have the 2 most important conditions need for high productivity. The quarries are either limestone and or phosphate. If you put those 2 together , which occurs in this area a lot you get very high productivity. Some studies show 2000 to 3000 lbs of fish per acre capacity. Don't know if this is the case on the described lake.

Also there is no doubt that over time you can select for size and fast growth in BG and get high potential for 2 lb BG. See Bruce Condello's work. BG as a species have alternative reproductive methods (sneeker/cuckhold males) which select for small size. This is an alternative reproductive survival of the specie adaptation.

It is critical to look for answers from all angles and perspectives. How long would Labron survive in the land of the pigmies?

Many quarries in the Fla/Ga area have the 2 most important conditions need for high productivity. The quarries are either limestone and or phosphate. If you put those 2 together , which occurs in this area a lot you get very high productivity. Some studies show 2000 to 3000 lbs of fish per acre capacity. Don't know if this is the case on the described lake.

Eric, I just don't know but the same you suggested has occurred to me as a possibility. In what I have read, the water is ultra clear and the BG in the lake easily spooked. I wouldn't think it would harm anything though to be very fertile provided it didn't cause DO issues. If there is groundwater flow, highly fertile water could still remain pretty clear and cool if the volume exchanges every few days or so. This water is certainly very special but the vastly reduced BG reproduction and moderated temperature may be two very important pieces to its puzzle.

Originally Posted By: Bill Cody

Also one of the main reasons is - the reason is basically why we are not all as big as Labron James and a few other very tall basketball people.

Bill, yes but even a 6 foot tall man can weigh 500 lbs. He has to eat a lot and not expend too much energy for it. He'll keep growing as long as there are surplus calories and he lives. Mortality probably isn't an insignificant factor in BG ultimate size. Even so, a 500 lb 6 footer is an outlier not much less rare than a Labron James. Most people just won't eat that much. Probably BG have differing propensities to eating heavily as well.

It seems to me that it is difficult to know how big a typical pond owner's BG might get in the BOW that grew the world records. I question whether the run of the mill BG are terribly impaired genetically. It seems very reasonable that they might attain 2 lbs and 12"+ assuming the predation scenario that existed through the periods when the record fish were caught. Certainly, there are genetic outliers but we really don't know and can't quantify just how they are distributed about some mean value except by a case by case (BOW by BOW) basis.

To be honest, when I hold a 9" BG in my hand I am grinning from ear to ear and in no way disappointed in him. Greater than 10" is real treat. Though I have fished extensively for BG, I've only caught one of 12". I was just blown away by its dimensions and a lot younger at the time. I wish now I had released him. 12" BG are rare but I think they could be more common as we learn more.

To be sure, growing a 12" bluegill is more complicated than just controlled reproduction as you discovered with the male-only BOW. Even when there is little competition it matters how young they are when sexed and they have to continue living after reaching the size they normally die at.

Richmond Mill's water is so acidic there is no viable BG recruitment, and it has more 2#+ BG than any other BOW I've ever been on. Do regular rules apply when talking about anomaly's? If the water conditions were more favorable to BG as a whole, would Richmond Mills still be the BOW it is? They obviously feed heavily, but I'm with John (snrub). If you're feeding all the BG in a healthy pond, I wouldn't think the odds are as good for a 2# BG. Believe me, that last quarter pound is tough to get even on 10.5"+ BG.

I am feeding all the BG, but only shooting for BG over one pound. First CNBG are now about three years old, and about 7 to 8 inches, but very thick. I think they might get there in the three years or so of their remaining lifespans.

Maybe a food for BG will come out with synthetic growth hormone, which will allow them to reach unheard of sizes. Might not want to eat those though?

Richmond Mill's water is so acidic there is no viable BG recruitment, and it has more 2#+ BG than any other BOW I've ever been on. Do regular rules apply when talking about anomaly's? If the water conditions were more favorable to BG as a whole, would Richmond Mills still be the BOW it is? They obviously feed heavily, but I'm with John (snrub). If you're feeding all the BG in a healthy pond, I wouldn't think the odds are as good for a 2# BG.

Richmond Mill's also has an unnatural quantity of LMB. They, like the BG are pellet fed. I presume because they are pellet fed they must be sourced to a hatchery and not naturally recruited. It is really difficult to make a plausible case that Richmond Mill's is an example of what one can expect from a feeding regimen. This is only a theory, I can't back it up, but I suspect that feeding does more than just grow existing BG. I wonder if it helps more BG achieve the gape limit making the need for feed all the greater if one has trophy BG goals. Richmond Mill's is an exception to this theory it would seem. I wasn't aware its poor recruitment was assisted by acidic water. However, couple this with an unnatural quantity of LMB and it might be trophy water whether one feeds or not? Whatever the case, feeding doesn't prevent 2 LB BG there for sure.

John, I hope you get your 2#. I sure would like to see a few of them on the forum.

jps, my reference to Richmond Mills was used to show a BOW that had a limiting factor that actually helped the trophy BG production. Something different the the standard favorable water conditions we all want, and the dual role of BG as both prey and predator that almost all of us with LMB have.

jps, my reference to Richmond Mills was used to show a BOW that had a limiting factor that actually helped the trophy BG production. Something different the the standard favorable water conditions we all want, and the dual role of BG as both prey and predator that almost all of us with LMB have.

The point is well made. To be sure there is something special about any water that can produce 2lb BG. Low recruitment is one the special requirements. In the case of Richmond Mills, it might need feed in order to produce them. It would be interesting to know the ultimate weights BG achieved prior to feeding. It wouldn't be definitive because recruitment would have probably been more successful without the large LMB numbers but at least it might serve to demonstrate an example of the dependence of feed to produce a larger _ultimate_ sized BG. If they did achieve larger ultimate size without feed, it seems likely that they were rarely caught as compared with the relative ease that 2 lb BG are caught there now.

With regard to Richmond Mill's. Does it classify as a true trophy LMB lake? Or is more of a very large numbers of decent sized bass lake?

Put ten fish (with absolutely no other fish) in an acre of water and give them all the feed they will eat and I'm sure there will be different results than supplementing feeding a pond that is full to carrying capacity of a variety of predator and prey fish.

Many of us feed but not specifically for trophy's or even to feed satiation levels.

To get a lot of 2# BG I would think it would take some very specific feeding conditions, not general supplemental feeding of an entire carrying capacity pond.

I have two problems with "pouring the feed to them". First is cost (if it is a significant size BOW) and second is water quality. I dropped back from feeding 5-6# feed per acre to 3 or less specifically because of water quality issues.

I have been struggling with the feeding mysteries.

If I feed more, am I growing bigger CNBG, or just more CNBG??? Year one I fed about 800# per acre for the year. year two about 1000#. year three I'm thinking of backing back down to the 800# range.

Is feeding 800 pounds in 6 months, different than feeding 800# over 10 months by feeding longer in cooler months when water is in the 50s?

If I know I'm going to feed X amount, wouldn't it be better to feed that amount when fish are at max growth rate based on water temp?

Is brand A feed better than brand B??? How much better????

Where is the sweet spot in #s feed/acre???

Am I putting too much effort into trying to recruit anything resembling a Shaquille O'Neal or even a Dennis Rodman out of my 1A pond size??? What are the odds???